Quashed

Vemula Rajesham, Husnabad, and Another v. the State of a.P.,Rep. Pp. High Court, through Sho, Husnabad

Telangana HC4 Dec 2017CRLP/3620/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition, the court quashed proceedings under the Explosives Act, 1884 for alleged unlawful possession of explosives. Relying on the petitioners' valid license covering the seized items at the relevant time, the court held further proceedings redundant.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Husnabad are quashed against the petitioners.

Vemula Rajesham, Husnabad, and Another Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.3 6 2 0 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings in CC.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Husnabad.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the respondent.

¶6

A charge sheet was laid against the petitioners, who are A1 and A2, for the offence under Section 9 (B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegations are that on 13.04.2006, the accused were in unlawful possession of explosive material without any licence or permission and the explosives seized from them are 1) 200 numbers Electric Detonators; 2) 600 numbers Ordinary Detonators; 3) Twelve bundles of Safety Fuse (Each bundle 7 meters); 4) One Exploder and 5) one drilling jack.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused has license for possession of the explosives, which were seized from them. A copy of the licence dated 05.02.2006, is also furnished along with the record, which shows that it is valid till 02.03.2008 and it also covered all the above said material. The petitioners also produced a copy of the license dated 16.06.2008 issued for the period ending 31.03.2010.

¶8

Apart form the allegation that they are in possession of the above material, there is no other allegation that the petitioners are in

¶9

¶10

possession of the explosive material other than that covered by the license. Hence, when the petitioners are in possession of valid license, it cannot be said that they are in illegal possession of the explosives. Hence, continuation of further proceedings in the above CC would only be a futile exercise, resulting in abuse of process of law and wastage of Court’s time.

¶11

The criminal petition is allowed and proceedings in CC.No.355 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Husnabad are hereby quashed against the petitioners. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________ T. RAJANI, J

¶13

December 4, 2017 DSK

Vemula Rajesham, Husnabad, and Another v. the State of a.P.,Rep. Pp. High Court, through Sho, Husnabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula Rajesham, Husnabad, and Another v. the State of a.P.,Rep. Pp. High Court, through Sho, Husnabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyderabad Vs G.Ramanamma and 7 Others

Shaik Jilani Basha Vs Smt. S. Govvardhana and Another

Vipin Kumar Mehra and 3 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

D.Lingaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Pamidi Narayana, and Another, Vs Mrs. Gore Anitha, and Another

Smt.Mannepalli Praveenasri and Another, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another